P.K. v. Tillerson
Civil Action No. 2017-1533
| D.D.C. | Sep 29, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs are diversity-visa lottery winners from Yemen and Iran whose visa applications were delayed or refused after the State Department implemented guidance following President Trump’s Executive Order No. 13780 (a 90‑day suspension on entry for nationals of six countries).
- Plaintiffs completed applications and interviews but were told they were ineligible unless they showed a "bona fide relationship" with a U.S. person or entity as described in the Supreme Court’s June 26, 2017 stay in Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project.
- Plaintiffs sued, seeking (1) to enjoin the State Department policy applying the Executive Order to diversity‑visa issuance and (2) mandamus relief compelling consular officers to process/issue their FY2017 diversity visas despite the Order, or alternatively to reserve unused FY2017 visa numbers for later processing.
- The government argued the Supreme Court’s stay and pending review of the Executive Order precluded this court from granting the requested injunctive relief and asserted the FY2017 visa cap had been reached.
- The district court declined to enjoin the State Department’s policy while the Supreme Court reviews the Executive Order but granted limited equitable relief: the State Department must report unused FY2017 visa numbers by Oct. 15 and reserve those unused numbers for processing after the Supreme Court’s decision (if Plaintiffs prevail).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court may enjoin State Dept. policy applying EO to DV visas while Supreme Court reviews EO | Chutkan (plaintiffs) argued the Supreme Court’s stay addressed entry, not visa issuance, so this court can rule on State Dept. policy | Tillerson (defendants) argued the Supreme Court considered implementation and balanced equities; the stay precludes district relief altering status quo | Denied — Supreme Court’s stay and related appellate rulings preclude altering status quo as to policy/visa issuance injunctions |
| Whether preliminary injunctive/mandamus relief compelling issuance/processing of FY2017 visas is appropriate | Plaintiffs argued consular officers have a nondiscretionary duty to issue visas to statutorily eligible applicants and irreparable harm will occur if visas are lost due to the fiscal‑year deadline | Defendants argued the Supreme Court stay and the pending merits, plus the visa cap and deadline, bar such relief; mootness asserted if cap reached | Denied as to affirmative relief ordering issuance/processing now; court declined to compel issuance while Supreme Court review pending |
| Whether court may order reservation of unused FY2017 visa numbers for post‑decision processing | Plaintiffs argued equitable/mandamus power permits courts to preserve relief (citing precedent where courts ordered processing past caps/deadlines) and no adequate remedy exists | Defendants argued statutory caps and deadlines preclude such relief and claimed mootness because cap reached | Granted in part — court ordered State Dept. to report and reserve any unused FY2017 visa numbers for potential processing after Supreme Court decision |
| Whether consular non‑reviewability bars relief | Plaintiffs argued their challenge targets a general State Dept. policy, and many applications are not finally refused (so nonreviewability inapplicable) | Defendants argued courts lack jurisdiction to review consular visa decisions and timing of processing | Rejected — doctrine did not bar relief here because plaintiffs challenge a policy (not an individual discretionary denial) and applications appear not finally decided |
Key Cases Cited
- Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project, 137 S. Ct. 2080 (U.S. 2017) (Supreme Court granted partial stay of injunctions and drew distinction for foreign nationals with no bona fide U.S. relationship)
- Hawaii v. Trump, 859 F.3d 741 (9th Cir. 2017) (Ninth Circuit found §2(c) likely exceeded INA and discussed suspension of immigrant‑visa issuance)
- Int’l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554 (4th Cir. 2017) (Fourth Circuit found §2(c) likely violated Establishment Clause and noted pause on entry effectively halts visa issuance)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. 2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (U.S. 2008) (preliminary injunction is extraordinary relief)
- Fornaro v. James, 416 F.3d 63 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (mandamus elements: clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy)
- Przhebelskaya v. U.S. Bureau of Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 338 F. Supp. 2d 399 (E.D.N.Y. 2004) (equitable relief ordering processing/issuance despite statutory cap/deadline)
- Paunescu v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 76 F. Supp. 2d 896 (N.D. Ill. 1999) (court used mandamus/equity to require processing and relief past statutory deadline)